3D Printing Needs to Open Up

As the 3D printing industry begins a steady shift toward end-production parts manufacturing, some of the prototyping-based models it has operated on for 30 years must change, says a new report from Lux Research titled, "How 3D Printing Adds Up: Emerging Materials, Processes, Applications, and Business Models." Emerging third-party suppliers of materials, design tools, and machines are already challenging those models.

Design News readers following this subject know that most of the media still focus on consumer uses, such as custom jewelry, toys, clothes, food, and guns. But that's not where the technology is making the biggest difference, Anthony Vicari, Lux research associate and lead author of the study, tells us. "Industrial uses, from molds and tooling to production parts, are having a bigger impact."

By 2025, Lux Research predicts the overall 3D printing market will be valued at $12 billion. More than 50% of that total, or $7 billion, will be in production parts, up from 13% today. Printers will be worth $3.2 billion, and formulated materials will be $2 billion.
(Source: Lux Research)

The market for production parts, and the overall market itself, are growing faster than Vicari and his team expected. Last year, they projected a total market value of $8.4 billion by 2025, but this year that 2025 estimate has changed to $12 billion. More than 50% of that total, or $7 billion, will be in production parts, up from 13% today. Printers will be worth $3.2 billion, and formulated materials will be $2 billion.

But to reach those levels, some major changes in processing and printable materials technology must occur, says Vicari. Most third-party materials suppliers are selling directly to end-users, which is easier to do in the consumer space than the industrial space. There, the "razor/blade" model of the big suppliers such as 3D Systems, Stratasys, and EOS has prevailed, where industrial users purchase both machines and materials for those machines from a single manufacturer. Because of that model users pay premium prices for proprietary formulated materials: a markup between 10 times and 100 times. Of the top four manufacturers, which together hold a 31% market share for printers, Arcam alone has an open-materials supply model.

The three main uses for 3D printing are prototypes, molds and tooling, and end-production parts. One of the applications for production parts that will grow the most by 2025 is automotive.
(Source: Lux Research)

With no open-materials market in the industrial space, users also can't be sure of the material's exact contents. "In the consumer space, it's easy to find out what's in a material, including additives: Their makers are very upfront about it," he continues. "That's because users need to know what recipe to use in each of a hundred different printers. On the industrial side, a 3D printer maker may tell you the material is nylon or ULTEM, but you don't know what else has been added." That's a good model for prototyping -- everything works together out of the box -- but for making end-production parts, no one company has a wide enough range of materials to meet all users' needs. The razor/blade model also makes it very difficult for new industrial materials suppliers to enter the market. The big printer companies are still trying to maintain control, but they risk shutting themselves out of that growth of end part production, he says.

The razor/blade model also inhibits the use of 3D printing for end-production. For example, it makes it difficult to adapt 3D printing for in-house manufacturing if you're using proprietary machines, but can't tweak the process to adapt it to your needs. "If you don't know the process, you can get significant variations from one run to the next," says Vicari. "How do you how ensure consistency from the printer and its materials, and make them more reliable? What has to be different from QC? What recipes should get what properties? How do you confirm the process is reliable?" This is especially important in aerospace and medical, the two industries at the leading edge of end-parts production, which are highly regulated.

One of the promises of 3D printing has been the ability to produce end-parts locally, with lower startup costs. Now that low-cost printers are getting more technically advanced and competing with low-end machines from the big suppliers, there will be cases where it makes sense to go with the smaller one if it has an open-materials model, he says. Meanwhile, the expiration of yet more patents will continue to trigger growth. Several years ago, the expiration of some early patents for filament fusion machines patented by Stratasys as FDM (fused deposition modeling) began fueling an explosion in the low end. Over the next three years an even bigger shift is coming as patents on other key 3D printing technologies, such as SLS (selective laser sintering), start expiring. This will lower the costs of those methods and widen the range of capabilities that are available to users.

Remember, you don't always have to buy from the well known brands. There are ones like Deezmaker I have that is open source. Both the software and the machine is open source. Your choice of material is infinite. There is SLA, ABS, Nylon, rubber like and even water soluable.

The only catch is each new material you use, you have to adjust the speed, temperature etc to get it right. With matched material, is press a button and go. Takes a little more time and patience with the open source machine, and you end up knowing much more about the process of 3D printing.

" including HP, I once tried the alternate-sourced/manufactured ink cartridges, as well as the refillables, and was sorely disappointed in the incredibly bad quality. Now I only buy brand stuff. Which, of course, sucks."

That is why you buy Canon printers. The use liquid ink resevoir, and you refill yourself. Mine is five years old, and has been refilled many many times. $20 for a refill kit. Another $15 for this device that resets the volume gauge on the cartridge. Just be aware ink is way less viscous than water. Splash from a drop goes far. Don't do it on an antique table top.

The 3D printing really needs to open up to its end users. This is because it will really make work easier and efficient for people plus it will increase the production level and make work much more efficient. Engineers should work more on the design tools, they should make sure that they use the best that they can find out there, they should also look at all the business models that have been presented and see which model will be most effective plus they should also look at the applications that are being used in the printers.

Good examples of this phenomenon, Liz. I've seen lots of them, mostly in hardware, like modem technology. Rockwell went from owning 99% of the data modem market to owning very little of it after all that external hardware and software got simplified and stuck into first a chipset and then a single chip. That progression happened with several telecom/datacom technologies.

Yes, Ann, it sort of makes me think when I covered software many years ago and Java had just come out. It was somewhat proprietary and somewhat open, but at least it was more open than what was already available so a lot of developers switched from C++ to Java because it wasn't tied so much to a vendor. And then of course there was Linux, which was open source, and the adoption of that versus Unix, which wasn't. It's interesting to watch other technologies follow these similar models.

Thanks for that well thought-out comment, Clint. I think we've all been conditioned as users of (semiconductors and) consumer electronics to expect rapid tech "evolution" that gets us better and cheaper in fairly fast, short steps. OTOH, that very phenomenon keeps happening so our expectations are understandable. But so much of a 3D printer, regardless of its technology, has little to do with electronics; those subsystems don't, and can't, "evolve" in the same ways, or as fast.

Liz, this is a common trend in technology, but the owners of the proprietary tech always fight like mad to keep it that way, since their margins are a lot higher. BTW, this is the same basic message Vicari gave us in last year's report.

Lou, good example of the razor/blade selling model. This is the most common example used to make the materials point in the 3D printing market, and the most easily graspable, I think.As an owner of several inkjet printers, including HP, I once tried the alternate-sourced/manufactured ink cartridges, as well as the refillables, and was sorely disappointed in the incredibly bad quality. Now I only buy brand stuff. Which, of course, sucks.

As Elizabeth pointed out, your article took a fresh approach to a subject that is very well covered in the press.

I agree that the opening up of proprietary materials control would probably lead to greater proliferation of machines and applications. And prices will come down as expected.

However, I had to chuckle at how greedy we are as consumers and manufacturers. Just 5 years ago, my options for prototyping a concept were limited, very expensive and not necessarily representative of the end performance (due to lack of material choices or properties inherent to the prototyping process).

Yesterday, I ordered two prototypes to be made of polypropylene and colored matched for $400 with a three day delivery. These parts will behave like the production parts and will be used for performance evaluation, ergonomic evaluation and customer approval.

The fact that the equipment allowing that to happen is expensive is, well, something to be carefully considered. Its expense has to be weighed against 1) the possibilities that have been opened up; 2) the quality of the prototypes versus previous options; 3) the savings in design development time; 4) the possible evaluations allowed by the new quality.

Eventually the business model will evolve. And it will have to in order for the technology to fluorish. But I thought we should pause for a second and enjoy the doors that the current technology and business models have opened for us.

Instead of sifting through huge amounts of technical data looking for answers to assembly problems, engineers can now benefit from 3M's new initiative -- 3M Assembly Solutions. The company has organized its wealth of adhesive and tape solutions into six typical application areas, making it easier to find the best products to solve their real-world assembly and bonding problems.

Many of the materials in this slideshow are resins or elastomers, plus reinforced materials, styrenics, and PLA masterbatches. Applications range from automotive and aerospace to industrial, consumer electronics and wearables, consumer goods, medical and healthcare, as well as sporting goods, and materials for protecting food and beverages.

Engineers trying to keep track of the ever-ballooning number of materials and machines for additive manufacturing and 3D printing now have some relief: a free searchable database with more than 350 machines and 450 different materials.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.